Actually I was hoping he would mention Chelsea. And Gomez didn't score the only time he played them that was why I asked for 5 such teams but as we all know its bullshit. Messi didn't score vs Chelsea in how many appearances. Schweini Robbery didn't play well vs Bvb in how many appearances. In the CL Gomez has scored vs all opponent he played in the last 2 season's except Chelsea. That means the other teams play open unorganized football
replace Barca with Argentina NT and messi doesnt look the same. Of course it's all about the system. May be Bayern's tactics against organized sides are to blame and not gomez. i Think gomez has come a long way and fits the system pretty well. He is a hard worker and his attitude in the field is always positive.
well yea... Obviously the system is the most important element in football. But Gomez is a limited player in that we know what formation suits him the most and what his strengths and weaknesses are. Bayern's formation is perfect for him but it's the formation that isn't ideal against those types of opponents. Nobody is blaming Gomez individually, I hope. That would simply not make sense. But Bayern shouldn't have a problem theoretically. They have two types of strikers for different matches. Heynckes hasn't done his best to modify the team to utilize both to the best of their abilities but they do have them, and it's rare that any side in Europe is equipped like Bayern is. A Mandzukic was a missing piece since last season. It remains to be seen whether a new manager is another.
Precisely; we (or at least I) supposed "Gomez haters" are not arguing he's not a good player; on the contrary he's an amazing player with brilliant cross anticipation, positioning inside the box, finishing, etc., and on top of that he carries a very big aerial threat, but we need to accept Gomez is not Messi; he has limitations to his game the same way Manzudic, Klose, or any other player (even Messi is not ideal; he has no aerial threat) does. And there are going to be times, like the Chelsea game, when his game misfires or isn't the right fit for Bayern, and that's where Super Mario Manzudic comes in. Germany's a whole different story I don't feel like getting into right now, but there's my two cents on Gomez for club.
In my humble opinion 10 years ago nobody would have questioned that a striker with an outstanding national and international scoring record such as the one of Mario Gomez is rightfully called a world class striker. Even today or the very recent past he can hold his ground with the very best but we had that discussion plenty already. It was no other than the FC Barcelona alongside with the Spanish National Team that changed our view of aesthetics in football. Football was no longer measured alone by efficiency and beating your opponent. The "how was a goal build up", "how beautiful was the motion in which the striker scored" and "how fluently do all players participate in technically extraordinary combinations?" became so much more into our focus. Fancy football is simply en vogue. That's where Mario Gomez is certainly partially lacking but what people tend to forget is that there are successful tactical approaches in football which don't depend on being fancy. Well the topic got boring a long time ago for me personally so I'll just go to bed.
This is totally wrong and blatant revisionism. You should focus on the functionality of systems relative to success as defining player perception, not your own bias against Barcelona disguised as cultural observation.
Right. I've always said I love Gomez but that is seemingly lost on everyone who's rather divide arguments into two opposing and neat little categories. Makes arguing easier. Like I said before, information saturation is dangerous, especially when the average consumer is a dummy. He doesn't know what opinion to form. It's easier to choose an extreme. This board is a fantastic example of this. Proper dialogue on BS died several years ago.
What?! Spain 2008-2012 made beautiful football "en vogue"?! Dude, everyone has been debating efficiency vs beauty and pragmatism vs idealism in football ever since football was conceived. Jonathan Wilson wrote about it at length in "Inverting The Pyramid"; Brazil 1982 is considered by many as a legendary team despite their inability to win anything due to their amazingly appealing and beautiful football, and I'm certain the term "jogo bonito" dates back further than 2008. To say that all was well and everyone were result-driven pragmatic taskmasters before Aragones' Spain came in and made football into a bunch of swooning pansies is simply inaccuratel. Mario Gomez is not criticized because his style is not beautiful, he is criticized because his style is not dynamic; he's just extraordinarily good at a certain aspect of football according to his critics, and that's all he brings to the table. A versatile striker that can not only finish, but can pass, move, be versatile, drop deep, like, say, as a off-cuff example, Van Persie, that can adapt his game to different situations, is better than someone who is one-dimensional and cannot adapt his game, like, say, Emile Hesky or his heir, Andy Carroll, surely.
love you Paolo for doing it!!! Thanks. if he wins CL for US, ...sign..only if he scored those stupid goals last CL matches...only had we won in penalties....sign..my mind is so fixated on last season failure.
Oh well SirManchester here you're on it again. Obviously the arguments about Gomez sporting functionality and definition of his position have been battled months if not years ago so I took the liberty not to get into that argument again and add a new aspect to the story. Shame on me. Seriously, bias against Barcelona? Are you mistaking me for someone else? There's not one point here where I'm criticizing what Barcelona successfully did. But please look at the 10 Champions League winners before Barcelona entered their dominating era. Obviously there were always technically strong players in the top teams but no other club ever put that system of beauty and emphasis on technical abilities to the extreme as Barcelona did. It obviously changed the view on what is perceived as good and bad football in the general public. I was not talking about your detailed, "expert" analysis of Mario Gome but of what is the general perception of a majority of football fans. It just needs a look around the top clubs football forums and compare it to your memory 5-10 years ago. I'll leave you and your fanboy to your own private world then.
“I fear the day when the technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots.” Albert Einstein Seems appropo...
although i dont disagree... but i am pretty sure Albert never said that. it was a miss quote the original quote was "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."
That's not true, show me some data. I've seen him playing one-twos in close space, backheeled assists, swinging in pracise crosses, intercepting build ups of the other team, defending corners etc. etc. In 2011 he's got more goals in the NT than Klose and only 2 assists less, in 2012 he was the reason why we reached semi final of the EC because the rest of the team wasted like 50 shots on goal in 5 matches. He's scored against every opposition in CL, every. If he would have taken the penalty in extra time, Bayern would be CL holder right now considering how calm he scored his one in the penalty shoot out. What you have to understand is, is what has happen around 2008. He was player of the year and one of the most hyped players in Germany despite playing one-dimensional counter football for VfB that time. Then there was the EC2008 where he wasted a chance ridiculous (which does happen sometimes to everybody, ask Klose). It wasn't even crucial to the result/outcome but the shitstorm that were brought to him was unequaled. Ever. The picture of the fallen hero, the ingrained disappointment that goes soo deep that it can't be forgiven by most of his critics. This whole thing has grown dimensions where he's the person to blame if the team plays bad because he's on the field, he's the focus of every thing that does happen badly on the field. He can't even get a hair cut without getting critizised, it's absurdistan all over again and will be forever as long as he's an active footballer. Berti Vogt's said that even if he would walk over water they will say "look, he can't even swim lololrofl". That's pretty much the same for Mario but the good thing is, that he's accepted his situation and doesn't look effected by this anymore.
In the link I'm about to provide, named "Assessing Forward Involvement", there is a chart of the average passes per game Gomez does versus the average amount of shots Gomez takes compared with a number of other forwards out there. You'll clearly see he's not as involved with build-up, hence, a lower number of passes than a lot of the other forwards compared to shots taken. Is this a crude measure? Yes it is, but it is the best I got. In fact, if you read the article, which you may choose to not do without any complaint from me, because the big thing is the chart, the author notes Gomez is an example of a forward who is not very involved multiple times. http://2plus2equals11.wordpress.com/tag/mario-gomez/ There's my data. And I disagree with the phenomenon you're describing here. If someone hates a player for doing poorly in a clutch game, that is wrong because everyone makes mistakes. In fact part of the reason why I think people criticize Gomez for missing X or Y chance is because it happens so rarely, and also because they disagree with the way Gosmez works, they're looking for a way to tarnish his credentials. For example, during the game against Argentina, Klose had space on the ball, right in front of goal, cross was coming in, and he tries some sort of overpowered scissor kick that sends that picture perfect chance way high. If Germany hadn't won that game, I am of thr opinion he would've been lynched by the media. So there's a certain element of luck involved, and Gomex is often a part of teams that make it to the point of almost winning the tournament only to falter at the last hurdle, and then it is very easy to blame the forward, especially if the forward had a bad image anyways.
Again, I repeat my earlier point; beautiful football always has been a crowd-plaser. Ronaldinho, who was in his prime before Guardiola, was a master at pleasing the crowd because he did all sorts of neat tricks and feints in his dribbling style. I see you have refused to address my points in favor of relegating me to SirManchester's "fanboy". How small-minded, weak, and pathetic is that? I agree with SirManchester on that particular point, yes, but that's among one of the lowest, most cynical red-herrings I have ever seen to excuse you from addressing my point. I hope the forum exposes that slight of hand for what it is; a low, contemptible attack whose owner shall derive no respect .
I think Barcelona symbolizes a shift in how we watch the game but it that has more to do with functionality not aesthetics. As mentioned already, that theme has been in discussion for decades already before this Barcelona side. No football fan who has been familiar with the game prior will automatically change his ideology because of this Barcelona side and new fans don't have a point of reference to be swayed by a new level of aesthetics and criticize what came before. It just seems as a cheap way to discredit the arguments laid out in this forum and excuse me if this isn't to your liking but the heavy, often disgusting and perpetually invalid anti-Barca anti-Spain stances here and on the Germany forum in general don't do you any favors. It's absurd that those who can't grasp the points made turn this into a Gomez-bashing theme. That's even more harmful to Gomez and it's coming from those who are trying to defend him. This has NOTHING to do with him as an individual and it's an insult to my intelligence to always have to say what a great striker and player he is but it's simply about functionality and tactical philosophy. Simple as that. The fact that he does require teams to adjust to him is telling what a powerful player he is. Unfortunately that's not necessarily only a positive trait in modern football, especially not in Germany whose technical forwards have surpassed the traditional striker and there is a constant clash of the two and how we can fit them all together.
So the formation is perfect for Gomez even though you said he doesn't fit the formation for 2 1/2 years running now? Hmmmmmm
Quotes from the link Do you notice that all the players in this zone are strikers first at every point in their career? and always the most forward guys in their teams? Did you notice that all the strikers here were not top 9 in most of their plays? In the days of 4-4-2 these guys would have been support strikers Ronaldo has Benz/Higuain ahead, Totti a midfielder who most times has players ahead of him, Ronney has Hernandez or Welbeck, Raul had Huntelaar ahead of him, Suarez had Carroll So whats the point in saying a player who plays further back had more passes than those that were arrow head in their team? Schwein or Kroos would have more passes than Mandzukic thats a given or Ozil/Modric has more passes than Higuain/Benz
Are you surprised? Earlier we heard the teams Gomez scored on Napoli, Inter, Madrid, Citeh, Holland were all open and disorganized sides
No no, please explain I am very curious to see how the formation was perfect for Gomez when he doesn't fit as you said since he's joined the club. Teach the class, we all know how much you love to do that.